Voices: National magazine censors a Kodak moment

Tuesday

I’ve carried a camera with me for so many years that I consider it part of my wardrobe. If it’s not in my pocket or purse or hanging around my neck, I’m just not fully dressed.

I’ve carried a camera with me for so many years that I consider it part of my wardrobe. If it’s not in my pocket or purse or hanging around my neck, I’m just not fully dressed. I make no claim of understanding the science and art of photography, but I’m proof that if you take enough pictures, you’re bound to take a good one sooner or later.

Having taken thousands, I have a few that fall into that category. My current favorite is one I took a couple of months ago of my grandson Jack and my little dog Ruby. It may not be a skilled or artfuI photograph, but in terms of sheer cuteness, it’s definitely a winner.

I shared my photo of Ruby and Jack on an Internet list of basenji owners. (The basenji is the “barkless dog of Africa.”) One of the other list subscribers is the editor of an expensive, glossy, monthly magazine for hound breeders, exhibitors and judges. It just so happened that the upcoming issue of her magazine was going to feature the basenji, so she asked permission to use my photo. The next month she sent me three copies of the magazine with my photo published full-page, in full color, far exceeding anything I envisioned. My immediate delight turned to incredulity when I noticed that the image had been censored.

A few words of explanation are in order here. Jack, 3, recently took a major leap forward in his development, graduating from diapers to big-boy training pants. One afternoon when he was visiting, he announced that he had to pee. Alas, the bathroom was occupied. To spare him the embarrassment and discomfort of wetting his pants, I told him he could go discreetly in the weeds outside. Now, anyone who has been a boy, or raised one, understands the satisfaction of “going” in the great outdoors, and from Jack’s gleeful contemplation of my suggestion, it was obvious that he’d had some prior experience.

I quickly leashed the dog and grabbed my camera and out we dashed to a weedy area at the edge of lawn. With his back to me, Jack dropped his pull-up pants to just below his cheeks. At the instant that he began to go, I realized that Ruby was also in the weeds, next to Jack, with her back to me, doing the same thing. Click. A Kodak moment.

In the magazine reproduction, Jack’s bare little buns were air-brushed into a fleshy blob. The editor later explained that she decided to blur that part because of the “twisted and overly sensitive world we live in. I didn’t want someone to come busting down my door saying I was publishing child porn.”

Huh?

I can’t blame her for not wanting to be harassed or criminally investigated, but I dare to hope that hers is an advanced case of paranoia. Heaven help us if we now have to second-guess the fantasies of the world’s perverts to avoid unfounded accusations.